NGT order on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's AOL

8/19/2019 NGT order on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's AOL

1/10

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNALPRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Original Application No. 65 of 2016(M.A. No. 130 of 2016& M.A. No. 166 of 2016)

AndOriginal Application No. 76 of 2016(M.A. Nos. 144 of 2016)

AndOriginal Application No. 81 of 2016

AndOriginal Application No. 108 of 2016

IN THE MATTER OF : -

Manoj Misra Vs. Delhi Development Authority &Ors.

AndPramod Kumar Tyagi Vs. Art of Living International Center&Ors.

AndAnand Arya Vs. Delhi Development Authority &Ors.

AndOjasvi Party Vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest &Ors.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. NAMBIAR, JUDICIAL MEMBERHON’BLE DR. D.K. AGRAWAL, EXPERT MEMBERHON’BLE MR. BIKRAM SINGH SAJWAN, EXPERT MEMBER

Original Application No. 65 of 2016Present: Applicant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Mr.Ritwick Dutta,

Adv., Mr. Rahul Choudhary. Ms.MeeraGopal,Mr.Anand Arya Advs. and Swami OmjiMukeshJain

Respondent No. 1: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Mr. Kush Sharma andMr.SagarMehrotra, Ms.Arpita, Mr.JasmeetSingh Advs. for DDA, Mr.Attin ShankarRastogi, Mr. Amit Yadav

Respondent No. 2: Mr.Tarunvir Singh Khehar, Adv., Mr. Josephand Mr.BenashawSoni for GNCTD

Respondent No. 4: Ms.Savitri Pandey, Adv. and Mr. NaveenChawla for Irrigation Deptt.

Mr. B. V. Niren and Mr.Ishwer Singh for MOWRRespondent No. 6: Mr. Rahul Pratap, Adv and Mr. Amit Bansal,

Adv. for MoEFMr.ADN Rao, Mr.SudiptoSircar, Mr. AnnamVenkatesh, Ms.Ankita Chadha for DMRCMr.BalenduSekhar, Adv., Mr.EishaanBhauguna, Mr.AkshayAbrol and Mr. AmitBansal for EDMC

Original Application No. 108 of 2016Present: Applicant: Swami Om Ji and Mr.Mukesh Jain

Respondent No. 1: Mr.Attin Shankar Rastogi and Mr. Amit YadavMr.Tarunvir Singh Khehar, Adv.Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Mr. Kush Sharma andMr.KeshavDatta, Ms.Arpita, Mr. NaveenChawla, Advs. for DDA

Mr. B. V. Niren for EDMCMr.BalenderShekher, Adv., Mr.AkshayAbrol,Adv., Mr.EishaanBahuguna, Adv., Mr. AmitBansal, Adv.

Date andRemarks

Orders of the Tribunal

Item Nos.02 to 04

March 09,2016

The arguments in the case have just concluded.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and

keeping in view the urgency involved in the lis , it is


2/10

required of the Tribunal to pass a short order giving

its conclusions, reasons for which would be provided

by a detailed judgment subsequently.

Having heard the parties at length, perusing the

records produced, the three Reports submitted by the

Principal Committee constituted by the Tribunal in

the main Yamuna matter, Prof. A.K. Gosain and

MoEF respectively as well as the pleadings of the

parties, we pass the following order recording our

conclusions:-

1. For the reason of delay and laches on the part of

the applicant in approaching the Tribunal and for

the reason of fait accompli capable of restoration

and restitution, we are unable to grant the prayer

of prohibitory order and a mandatory direction for

removal of construction and restoration of the area

in question to the applicant at this stage. The

principles, as stated in the judgment of the

Tribunal in the case of S.P. Muthuraman v. Union of

India and Ors. (2015) ALL (I) NGT Reporter (2)

(Delhi) 170, can be squarely applied to the facts

and circumstances of the present case. We may

notice that the interim stay against the said

judgment of the Tribunal has been declined by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 23rd

November, 2015 in that case. The applicant had

written to the Lt. Governor of Delhi on 11th

December, 2015 but filed the present application


3/10

only on 8th February, 2016. In the meanwhile, the

Vyakti Vikas Kendra - India (the ‘Foundation’) had

substantially completed the construction work on

the flood plains and allied areas which would

squarely fall within the jurisdiction of this

Tribunal.

2. It needs to be stated that the Applicant has not

raised any challenge to the permission dated 30th

June, 2015 granted by DDA and letters of other

Authorities stating that no permission was

required by the Foundation from them, although

they had been placed on record and relied upon

during the course of hearing. This factor would

place the Applicant at some disadvantage though

his application would not be liable to be dismissed

on this ground alone.

3. This Tribunal is primarily dealing with the

ecological, environmental and biodiversity damage

done to the river and the flood plains by the

activity of the Foundation and the environmental

consequences of holding such an event. We are

not strictly concerned with the cultural event that

is proposed to be held from 11th to 13th March,

2016.

4. We are unable to accept the contention raised on

behalf of the DPCC that it was not obligatory upon

the DPCC to grant and/or refuse the consent to

the Foundation for making such construction and


4/10

the manner in which it would deal with the

sewerage, Municipal Solid Waste generated and the

source of water supply for holding such a huge

gathering at the event in question. In any case, it

was expected of the Board to issue appropriate

directions in exercise of its statutory powers. On

the true construction of Section 25 read with

Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control

of Pollution) Act, 1974, we have no hesitation in

holding that DPCC has failed to discharge its

statutory obligation despite the fact that the

Foundation had submitted an application for

obtaining its consent. The Board has failed to

exercise due diligence and in fact it has exercised

its authority improperly in taking a stand that no

orders were called from the Board in the facts and

circumstances of the case. Thus, we impose costs

of Rs. 1 lakh on DPCC.

5. The Foundation has submitted its application to

various authorities for obtaining permission for

holding the event. It has not obtained any

permission as yet from the Police Department, Fire

Department and from the Ministry of Water

Resources, River Development and Ganga

Rejuvenation, which undisputedly, in terms of the

Notification dated 31st July, 2014 is the Authority

responsible for conservation, development,

management and control of water pollution of River


5/10

Yamuna. All these authorities have failed to

exercise due diligence in fulfilment of their public

duties.

We also state here that the information provided

by the applicant was incomplete, vague and

uncertain since it did not provide any specific data,

supporting documents, comprehensive plan with

regard to carrying on of such a huge construction,

levelling activity and also construction of other

approach roads, pontoon bridges, ramps, parking

and a huge stage admeasuring 40 ft. high, 1000 ft.

long and 200 ft. wide to any of the Authorities.

This must lead to drawing of adverse inference

against the Foundation. We would have expected

the Foundation to disclose its entire project

besides holding of the cultural activity to all the

concerned authorities. Even on that count, the

Foundation would be liable to pay compensation.

6. Certain material deficiencies/discrepancies have

been pointed out by the Police Department of Delhi

in its letter dated 01st March, 2016 and letter of

PWD dated 08th March, 2016. We direct the

Foundation to comply with the safety, construction

stability and other requirements of all the

concerned authorities as well as obtain permission

from the Police Department, Fire Department and

also fulfil other requirements stated in the letter of

the Police Department. We also do not accept the


6/10

contention of the MoEF&CC that it was not

required for the Foundation to seek Environmental

Clearance for the project relating to all matters of

construction etc. as afore-referred. The stand of

MoEF&CC is contrary to the Notification,

particularly with respect to development of an area

of more than 50 ha. as contained in the EIA

Notification, 2006

7. It is the consistent view of the Experts and is

sufficiently evident from the documents placed on

record that the flood plains have been drastically

tampered with while destroying the natural flow of

the river, reeds, grasses, natural vegetation on the

river bed. It has further disturbed the aquatic life

of the river and destroyed water bodies and wet

lands on the flood plains, which were in existence,

as noticed in our judgment in the case of Manoj

Misra vs. Union of India and Ors., OA No.6 of 2012

decided on 13th January, 2015. Furthermore, they

have constructed ramps, roads, compaction of

earth, pontoon bridges and other semi-permanent

or temporary structures etc. even without the

permission of the concerned authorities including

Ministry of Water Resources. The permission

granted by Government of NCT of Delhi is of no

consequence as it is not the competent authority

for rights over the river and in any case, it was a

permission for only flood situation as is evident


7/10

from the bare reading of the permission. In fact,

that is the stand of Government of NCT of Delhi

itself before the Tribunal.

For the damage caused to the environment,

ecology, biodiversity and aquatic life of the river,

the Foundation should be held liable for its

restoration in all respects. In that regard and in

exercise of our powers under Sections 15 and

17 of the NGT Act, 2010 we impose an

Environmental Compensation, initially of Rs. 5

crores. This amount would be paid by the

Foundation prior to the commencement of the

event. This amount would be adjusted towards

the final compensation determined to be paid by

the Foundation for restoration work. We hereby

direct the Principal Committee constituted

under the judgment, to submit a report within

four weeks from today, in relation to the steps

required to be taken for restoration, restitution

and rejuvenation of the flood plains to its

original status. It will also state the

approximate cost that would have to be incurred

for such restoration and restitution. We further

direct that the entire area in question shall be

developed as a biodiversity park in terms of our

judgment in the case of Manoj Mishra (supra).

The cost thereof shall be paid by the Foundation

and DDA in the proportion as would be directed


8/10

by the Tribunal finally. The Foundation shall,

by tomorrow, file an undertaking before the

Tribunal that it would, within two weeks from

date of demand by DDA, pay the balance

amount for restoration, as directed by the

Tribunal.

The Principal Committee would be entitled

to engage such other experts as it needs to

assess the cost factor.

We also constitute a Committee of the

representatives of DPCC, MoEF&CC and

Member Secretary, CPCB, who shall

immediately inspect the site and issue

directions by tomorrow in relation to the source

of water, collection and disposal of the

Municipal Solid Waste and sewerage generated

during the event and also issue directions to

ensure that there is no further environmental

degradation or adverse impact on public health.

They shall also issue directions with regard to

the source of water and source of power and its

utilization thereof. These would be treated as

directions issued under Section 33A of the

Water Act and Section 6 of the Environmental

(Protection) Act, 1986 and would be binding

upon the Foundation and all public authorities

involved in the case.

8. The permission granted by the DDA dated 30th


9/10

June, 2015 is a vague permission, which, in fact,

is the very basis of the case of the Foundation.

However, irrespective of that, we find that the said

permission is not in consonance with the orders of

the NGT and in fact is in excess of the powers

vested in DDA which runs contrary to the spirit of

the judgment of the Tribunal. This cannot be

termed as a recreational activity simplicitor .

Cultural activity could be recreational but the

entire construction of ramps, roads, accumulation

of debris, alteration of the natural topography and

removal of natural vegetation from the flood plains,

cannot be said to be recreational. It is a complete

project in itself and the DDA ought to have applied its

mind. Strangely, it has neither conducted inspection of

the site prior to the grant of permission nor during

operation or subsequent thereto. Consequently, we

impose a cost of Rs.5 lacs on DDA for its defaults and

non-performance of its statutory functions.

9.

We also direct that the DDA shall not, in future, issue

such permission and any permission issued by the

DDA or any State/Authority in relation to flood plain of

River Yamuna, shall be subject to the orders of the

Tribunal.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the

Foundation has given an undertaking to the

Tribunal that it will not release any kind of

Enzymes into River Yamuna, its tributaries or any


10/10

water bodies henceforth without obtaining due

permission of CPCB and DPCC.

The amount stated above shall be deposited

with DDA and shall be maintained in a separate

account.

The above directions are issued, while leaving

the parties to bear their own costs, for which the

detailed reasons, as already stated, shall follow.

..………………………………….,CP (Swatanter Kumar)

..…..…….……………………….,JM (M.S. Nambiar)

...…..…………………………….,EM

(Dr. D. K. Agrawal)

...…..…………………………….,EM (B.S. Sajwan)

NGT order on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's AOL

Documents